The Hadith are not always right, hence why it's become the lifetime work by many scholars just to verify them. But they are valued as a collection of advice/rulings from those who are most knowledgeable in Islam.

So, my question is whether in the case of the Quran conflicting with a Hadith, the rulings from the Quran should be used instead? In cases of conflict between these sources, how is it normally resolved?

Some examples of conflicts:

Sahih hadith says that Zina is punishable by stoning, Quran says that Zina is punishable by flogging (Wikipedia)

Minor note; I'm not quite sure "supersede" is the right term, as chronologically the Quran precedes the Hadiths, so doesn't really replace any part of them. I'm struggling for a better term though, other than perhaps "the Quran wins".
–
Marc Gravell♦Aug 5 '12 at 0:11

The Hadiths are always right, If that is a Hadith. The scholars verify the hadithness, not the correctness. Yes, A hadith can be superseded by another Hadith.
–
AnwarAug 5 '12 at 7:30

@MarcGravell The (revealed) Qur'an doesn't necessarily precede the hadiths chronologically; the Qur'an was revealed piecemeal over many years, many of the events recorded in the hadith literature took place before the complete revelation.
–
goldPseudo♦Aug 6 '12 at 21:04

@goldPseudo then I stand corrected on "chronologically", but I maintain that "supersede" isn't quite the right word either.
–
Marc Gravell♦Aug 6 '12 at 21:30

@MarcGravell Yeah, I missed the real meaning of 'supersede'. Changed it to Override, which seems to be a bit of a strong term, but more technically accurate.
–
MuzAug 8 '12 at 6:41

6 Answers
6

No, actually the Quran does not override the authentic Ahadeeth, because the Ahadeeth are the container of the sunnah, it is the sunnah reaches us today. The Ahadeeth are checked for authenticity by information provided by those who narrated the Ahadeeth themselves, and the information was passed down and we have it today. So every Hadith that is authenticated must be followed, in other words the Quran and authentic Hadith/sunnah come together.

Furthermore, the Quran is not meant to be an encyclopedia, and hence does not contain details on how to do things. Like Salat for example, about 90% of salat is not in the Quran. And hence, one will find rulings/orders in the Ahadeeth that isn't in the Quran, and it is an obligation on us to follow these orders/rulings from the Ahadeeth/Prophet. (We must follow His sunnah in regards to religion, in general).

And whatever the Messenger has given you - take; and what he has
forbidden you - refrain from. And fear Allah ; indeed, Allah is severe
in penalty

Surat Al Hashar Ayah 7

And further more, the Quran and Authentic Sunnah do not and cannot contradict each other (as is clear in Ansari's answer). The Sunnah/Ahadeeth are also an explanation of the Quran, those who rely on the Quran, and their own (personal) understanding/interpretation only, are prone to deviation. An example, lets say that one wants to know what the ruling is for stealing, and the ruling is cutting the hand, but in Arabic Hand (يد) can mean from the finger tips to the wrist, or from the finger tips to the elbow, or it can mean the whole arm. And if the sunnah did not exist to clarify, there would be these three opinions which two of them are wrong.

So The Sunnah is an explanation/tafseer for the Quran, if you want to find a ruling you go to the Quran, but then you go to the Sunnah, and just like one cannot stop at the Quran, one cannot stop at the sunnah, and hence must go to how the Sahabah understood and implemented it. So the main point here in my answer is that the Quran and the Sunnah are two connected inseparable sources in Islam, in which rulings can be deduced (mind you, there are more than two, but I will just mention the Quran and the Sunnah here). I pray my answer is clear, and I apologize for it's lengthiness.

Sources: Islamic Online university Foundations of Islaamic Studies part 2

Assalamualaikum.
First of all I would like to say that don't ever try to mix the words of "Quran" and "Hadith" together.
Actually "Quran" is the collection of every single aspect of knowledge and the shower of the correct path. If you actually read Quran with its meaning, you have definitely found that this greatest book contains only the brief summary/descriptions of various matters. No explanations have been given.
So, to explain the messages of the great heavenly book, Nabi Karim(SM) was sent to this world by Allah. Hadiths are the acts, thoughts, speeches, silent agreements, forbiddings, etc. of the great Prophet(SM). Hadith is the explanation of all the messages present in the greatest heavenly book ever(Quran).

Surely, the position of Quran is above any others, though without Hadith you cannot execute the orders given by Allah in the holy Quran. For example: "Allah told in the Holy Quran to perform Salat and pay Zakat, but no idea is given in it as to how to perform Salat or what amount of wealth to be donated for Zakat. In this case, Hadith explains all these things clearly and easily."

Thus we must follow Quran and Hadiths correspondingly. Though some fault Hadiths may be found, but you can easily get the correct one through internet or any other book and for Hadiths there are many books of which the one that is thought most unfaulty is "Sahi Bukhari"

There is no fault hadith. There can be something that are leveled by "Hadith". I also think, most unfaulty word is not suitable for Sahih Bukhari. It implicitly says, there may be some faults in Bukhari and other Shahi's. But, +1 for the first part
–
AnwarAug 5 '12 at 7:32

By faulty hadith I meant the false ones that are/were created by other people
–
SazidApr 6 '14 at 20:03

The basic principle is that Qur'an and authentic ahadith cannot contradict each other because their source is the same. The contradiction is only on the surface, and in reality one is either a specification of the other or they apply in mutually exclusive conditions.

One of the conditions for the strength of a hadith is that it doesn't contradict something more authentic than itself (the Qur'an, as you alluded, is most authentic by virtue of its unparalleled tawatur). By definition, the sunnahexplains the Qur'an, and so if some hadith appears to contradict the Qur'an and this contradiction cannot be reconciled, then that hadith is severely diminished in strength and authenticity and not applied to the ruling. Usually however, scholars find ways to make both work together. The contradiction is usually just superficial and it turns out that one specifies the other (makes it more specific - like the Qur'an orders the establishment of prayer, the sunnah specifies exactly how). Usually this reconciliation works.

This is usually not a problem - the hard part is reconciling between different hadiths!

Hadith is like a window in the past to the Sunnah of the Prophet PBUH. All Muslims alike, irrespective of whatsoever sectarian or other bent they may have, agree that the Sunnah is the first, foremost and canonical interpretation of the Quran. The Quran itself testifies to that, for example in 33:21. Taken this way, Sunnah as an interpretation is ontologically an extension of the source ("Quran"), and no matter how esoteric, by definition, can not stand orthogonal to its source.

The only question with respect to an interpretation can be of its correctness. In the case of Sunnah, it is an axiom of Muslim faith that the Sunnah is flawless.

A hadith is only a narration that claims to ascertain a Sunnah and is therefore subject to sincere and hard criticism. There are cases where authentic Ahadith elaborate and/or seemingly override the verses of Quran. An example is that of the permissibility of easting dead locust.

He hath only forbidden you dead meat, and blood, and the flesh
of swine, and that on which any other name hath been invoked besides
that of Allah. But if one is forced by necessity, without willful
disobedience, nor transgressing due limits,- then is he guiltless. For
Allah is Oft-forgiving Most Merciful. [2:173]

However, we find Hadith like

Imam Ahmed and Imam Ibn Majah narrate from son of Omar (may Allah be
pleased with them all) that the Prophet of Allah (PBUH) said for us
two dead animal are lawful and two bloods. The two dead are fish and
locust, and the two bloods are liver and spleen.

The eating of locust is also narrated in

Narrated in Sahih Muslim and Bukhari that Abd’Allah bin Abi Auffi (may
Allah be pleased with him) said we were with the Prophet of Allah
(PBUH) in a holy battle [ghazwa'] and we use to eat locust in the
presence of the Messenger Allah (PBUH).

Considering only the Quranic verses, one can arrive at one of the two possibilities

Easting insects - including locust - is permissible.

Easting insects - including locust - is impermissible.

It is from the Ahadith that the commonly accepted rulings of the general non-permissibility of consuming insects except locust are formed.

Therefore we have to strictly adhere to the well established principle
that any hadith going against the Qur'an must be discarded and 'thrown
to the wall' - if it cannot be reinterpreted in an acceptable way.

First of all, let me clarify the verification of Ahadeeth included that they do not contradict with the Quran. So, all Sahih Ahadeeth do not and can not contradict with Quran.
As far as your stated example is concerned, flogging or lashing is the punishment for fornication and stoning is the punishment for adultery so both of them are correct.